Union of India vs Sandhya and Kumari Balasree

Honourable Mrs. Justice Aruna Jagadeesan

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 02.06.2009 made in OA. No. 81/2008 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The claimants, who are the wife and daughter of the deceased G. Satheesan, filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was residing in Bangalore and he had been to Palghat to attend the death ceremony of his mother and on his return journey along with the claimants on 2.3.2008 from Palghat to Bangalore, when the train reached Tiruppur, the deceased got down to fetch water and before he could board the train, the train started and he was left in the platform. The claimants reached Bangalore in the night and were hoping that the deceased would reach Bangalore by some other train, but as he did not arrive, the 1st claimant''s relative went in search of the deceased and gave a complaint at Tiruppur Railway Station, where he could not board the train. The 1st claimant came to know the fact of accident only on 6.3.2008 from the Police Officials of Erode Railway Police Station, who wanted her to identify the deceased from the photographs taken by them before burial. The deceased was identified by her from the photographs as well as a gold ring worn by him with the name Sandhya and the body was buried on 5.3.2008. The 1st claimant came to know from the Sub Inspector of Police, Erode that the deceased had fallen in the night of 2.3.2008 from any one of the trains between Perunthurai and Thottipalayam Railway Stations at Km-404/1-3, suffered grievous head injury being hit on the rock near the railway track in the process of fall from the train and died. The death was noticed by the Keyman on 3.3.2008 at 10.00 hours. The First Information Report was lodged by the Deputy Station Manager, Erode and the case was registered at Erode Railway Police Station in Cr. No. 62/2008 dated 3.3.2008 u/s 174 Cr.PC and the inquest was conducted by Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Erode and it was concluded that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered in the accidental fall from the train.

The Appellant in the reply statement opposed the claim made by the claimant. It was stated that the deceased was not a ''bona fide passenger'' and the alleged incident might be one other than falling from a train. Therefore, the accident is due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased and it would not attract the provisions of ''accidental falling from train'' under Sections 123(c)(2) and 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Act).

The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record and after hearing the contention of both the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant by the impugned order, which is challenged in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987.

Mr. T.S.Rajamohan, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that no ticket was recovered from the deceased and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was a ''bona fide passenger'' on the relevant date is not supported by any evidence. He would submit that the claimant had no personal knowledge about the facts and the statements made in the claim application appear to be hearsay. It was denied that the deceased was having a valid ticket for travelling and that the accident occurred only on account of the negligence and carelessness of the deceased. Tribunal committed an error in not considering above said aspects and in awarding compensation to the claimant.

Mr. T. Rajamohan, the learned counsel for the Respondents strenuously contended that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion that the deceased was a ''bona fide passenger''. The learned counsel would submit that the deceased having died in a horrible condition falling down from the train, the ticket would have been lost in such a situation and the evidence placed on record clearly disclosed that the deceased died in the course of travelling falling from the train and it is a clear cut case of death in an ''untoward incident''. The learned counsel further submits that the burden was on the Appellant to prove that the deceased was not a ''bona fide passenger''. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden is not discharged by the Appellant and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in drawing a conclusion that the deceased was a ''bona fide passenger''. The learned counsel also pointed out that it is admitted that the deceased fell down from the train and therefore, this would come within the ambit and meaning of ''untoward incident''. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008 4 MLJ 323 SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar).

This court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

Section 124A of the Act provides as follows:-

Compensation on account of untoward incidents:- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation: For the purpose of this Section, ''passenger'' includes:-

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

By the Amendment Act 28 of 1994, clause (c)(2) was inserted in Section 123 of the Act, bringing the ''accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers'' into the definition of ''untoward incident.''

From the above provision of the Railways Act, the points which are to be determined are that the person, who is claiming compensation for any loss, damage, injury or death, was a bona fide passenger having a valid ticket and sustained injury or death, as the case may be, in an ''untoward incident''. ''Untoward incident'' should not fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124A of the Act and the ''accidental fall'' would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and he would be covered by ''untoward incident'' as specified in Section 123(c) of the Act. Therefore, while boarding the train, due to jerk of the train if a person falls from the train and sustains injury or dies, it cannot be held that due to his own negligence or carelessness he sustained injury or died and the burden lies on the Railways to prove that the person met with an accident or death due to his own negligence thereby not entitled to compensation from the Railways.

In the case of Union of India Vs. Kurukundu Balkrishnaiah (2004 ACJ 529 AP), a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court answered to the following reference whether a passenger trying to board or alight from a running train or standing near the door, jumped from the compartment, crossing the railway track or leaning out of the carriage; and during the course of such circumstance had fallen down and was either injured or had died, was entitled to compensation from the Railways u/s 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The court while answering the reference has held that (1) where a bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident or sustain injuries, as the case may be, Railways to pay compensation without dispute, unless the death of the deceased or the injuries sustained by the injured, would fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Act; (2) accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and hence they would be covered by untoward incident as specified in Section 123(c)(2) of the Act. To attract any of the exceptions u/s 124A proviso, may have to be decided in each and every case and general propositions cannot be laid down in this regard in view of the complexity and diversity of the illustrations and the provisions or the Rules.

In the present case, it has been proved from the investigation of the Railway Police itself that the victim died of the accident due to fall from the train. In view of existence of First Information Report, inquest report, postmortem report, death certificate and the final report submitted by the Railway Police all in one voice concluded the case as an accidental fall from the train and being hit against a rock and without any material to indicate or infer any foul play or any collusive act, the Railways cannot contend that it is not an accidental fall from the train. In fact, the accident and the resultant death of the deceased occurred in the precincts of railways and his body was found lying in the upline between Perunthurai and Thottipalayam railway stations by a keyman. Ex.A8 certified copy of the journey ticket shows that the deceased had travelled along with his wife on 2.3.2008 from Palaghat to Bangalore and the said fact is not disputed by the railway authorities. It also emerges from the facts that he got down at Tiruppur to fetch water and before he could board the train, the train started.

In the above factual situation, it is for the railway administration to lead necessary evidence to establish that its case is coming within any of the exceptions stated in proviso to Sections 124A of the Act. The section lays down a rule that whenever an untoward incident occurs in the course of working a railway which irrespective of any wrongful act, neglect or default and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law railway administration is liable to pay compensation as may be prescribed in case of any injury to the passenger or to the passenger or to the dependants of the deceased victim who met with an untoward incident. Thus, unless railway administration can categorically point out that the case is within any of the exceptions covered by the provision, it cannot avoid its responsibility to pay the statutory compensation.

In the present case, the claimants relied upon evidence of widow who started journey along with the deceased and travelled till Tiruppur, as also documentary evidence which has been brought on record, such as copy of First Information Report, copy of inquest report, postmortem certificate, death report, final report and certified copy of journey ticket. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the railway administration and looking into the documentary evidence, it does prima facie appear that the deceased had died of accidental death as stated by the claimants. The evidence led by the claimants as referred to above, does furnish a ground for presumption that the deceased met with an untoward incident and unless there is evidence in rebuttal to the contrary which in the present case, was not led by the railway administration, the railway administration cannot avoid the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

On a perusal of the relevant provisions referred supra, it is manifest that the said provisions are a part of the beneficial and welfare statute, these provisions are intended for the benefit of the person who has died in such contingency. The Railways Act has defined the term ''untoward incident''. By perusal of the said definition of ''untoward incident'', it is eloquent that the said definition is an inclusive definition and it also includes an accidental fall of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. When a person is travelling in the train and falls down, that would certainly come within the purview of the accidental fall from a train. When we say that the provisions are part of a welfare statute, then the rules of interpretation mandate that the interpretation of the said provision shall be made in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made. The beneficial or a welfare statute should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation.

The Honourable Supreme Court in 2008 4 MLJ 323 SC (Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar), cited supra involving similar question of interpretation of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 has observed thus:-

No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression ''accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers'', the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the above mentioned two interpretations, i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose, should be preferred.

The conspectus of the above discussions would lead to the conclusion that if a section in a welfare statute is reasonably capable of two constructions, then that construction should be preferred which furthers the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to those in whose interest the Act may have been passed and the doubt if any should be resolved in their favour. So in a case of an exception which curtails the operation of beneficent legislation, the court in case of doubt would construe it narrowly so as not to readily expand the area of scope of exception. Once it is held that the fall of the deceased was a result of untoward incident, the claimant would be entitled for compensation.

For the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the impugned award is liable to be confirmed.

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The impugned award is confirmed. It is seen from the records that the entire award amount had already been deposited with interest on 24.10.2009 with the Indian Bank, High Court Branch. As per the order dated 15.12.2009 in MP.No.2/2009, the 1st claimant was permitted to withdraw 50 per cent of her share of the award amount with interest, which she had withdrawn and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- of the share of the 1st claimant and Rs. 2,00,000/- being the share of the minor second claimant are lying with the Indian Bank, High Court Branch. The 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw from the Indian Bank, High Court Branch the balance of her share of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the share of the minor 2nd claimant shall be invested in Fixed Deposit till she attains majority and the 1st claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest from the share of the minor 2nd claimant once in three months. No costs.